The impact of false accusations.

[laughing dog]

I would apply it to all crimes.

It's just that about the only cases it occurs are rape and domestic violence.

And your source for this claim of fact is....?

An allegation is false when there are major aspects of it that disagree with the known facts.

Suppose the person making the allegation is simply confused or mistaken but truly believes the allegation is true?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Interestingly, I would not have wished such sentencing on the man who raped me.

I have no problem with the victim of any crime asking the court for leniency, if that's what the victim wants, after the perpetrator has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court should listen to said victim's request. If the victim is deceased, their next of kin, if there's no evidence they've specifically designated someone else.

Not a matter of leniency on my part. A matter of acknowledging that the punishment is to be proportionate to the crime. Considering that a sentence of "life in prison without possibility of parole" usually addresses a conviction on murder one.

 

[RavenSky]

An allegation is false when there are major aspects of it that disagree with the known facts.

What about "intent"? Interesting to me that you keep insisting that "intent" must be a factor in a rape conviction (when it isn't) but you leave out the important element of "intent" in your definition of a "false allegation"

So are you suggesting that even cases of mistaken identity require that the woman be criminally prosecuting and put in prison?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An allegation is false when there are major aspects of it that disagree with the known facts.

What about "intent"? Interesting to me that you keep insisting that "intent" must be a factor in a rape conviction (when it isn't) but you leave out the important element of "intent" in your definition of a "false allegation"

So are you suggesting that even cases of mistaken identity require that the woman be criminally prosecuting and put in prison?

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

 

[Derec]

So the solution is to outlaw rape allegations.

Solution is to treat rape allegations with due scrutiny and to demand evidence, not presume that because a female alleges rape she is most likely telling the truth.

 

[Derec]

Every person is accountable for the choices they make. If you choose to make a false allegation, you are accountable for that choice.

Very few females are held accountable for making false allegations and feminists want to stop prosecuting false accusers altogether. Crystal Magnum was never held accountable for falsely accusing the Duke boys with the result that she later went on and murdered her boyfriend.

At college campuses likewise girls face little or no risk of facing consequences if they falsely accuse a male student of rape. Even when their claims are so patently false that they are actually charged with a crime by the police the university gestapo is still going to believe the girl.

 

[Derec]

As we've repeatedly seen, even when there is no arrest or prosecution for lack of evidence, some people take that as positive proof that the accuser is a lying liar who lies.

In "beyond a reasonable doubt" situations there is a broad "no man's land" where it can neither be proven that the accuser or the accused is guilty with a sufficient margin.
In the case of "preponderance of evidence" if it is not more likely that the accused is guilty it is almost automatically more likely that the accuser is guilty and there is no safety margin (except exact 50-50 split). That is the fundamental problem with using the "preponderance of evidence" in the first place, at least when used consistently. However, I have yet to see a case where the universities are consistent and expel a female for falsely accusing a male of rape. And in fact, even in cases where it is patently obvious that it is far more likely that the accused is innocent (UND, Vassar, UGA and Occidental cases all fit that bill) the male student is still expelled because that is the "politically correct" outcome, and damn the evidence.

 

[Derec]

None of the cases you have cited demonstrate clear innocence.

So now the standard is "guilty until clear innocence can be demonstrated"?

If they were clearly innocent then they would be found innocent even by the relatively low preponderance-of-evidence standard.

Using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is very problematic even if fairly and consistently applied but it is much worse because the standard is not applied fairly. In all the cases I mentioned it is far less likely that the accused guys were innocent. In one case the girl was even charged by the police. Doesn't matter - to the university kangaroo court the male student is deemed guilty even with no evidence. "A woman says it, we believe it, that settles it" could be the motto of these hearings.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What about "intent"? Interesting to me that you keep insisting that "intent" must be a factor in a rape conviction (when it isn't) but you leave out the important element of "intent" in your definition of a "false allegation"

So are you suggesting that even cases of mistaken identity require that the woman be criminally prosecuting and put in prison?

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

The FSU Noles quaterback case, *might* be one of those cases where "the difference between the story and the reality is substantially more than just human error". In view of :

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ston-not-charged-sexual-assault-investigation

In no way am I concluding the alleged victim made it all up. There are some grey areas in the process of the Tallahassee PD investigation. However, claims of "human error" on her part in that case would be suspicious.

Mind you that the SA at no time concludes "she made it up". Only that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case. That entire "drama" left a question mark in the mind of the FSU community. Some leaning towards "he did it", others to "she made it up".

 

[Derec]

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

The FSU Noles quaterback case, *might* be one of those cases where "the difference between the story and the reality is substantially more than just human error". In view of :

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ston-not-charged-sexual-assault-investigation

In no way am I concluding the alleged victim made it all up. There are some grey areas in the process of the Tallahassee PD investigation. However, claims of "human error" on her part in that case would be suspicious.

Mind you that the SA at no time concludes "she made it up". Only that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case. That entire "drama" left a question mark in the mind of the FSU community. Some leaning towards "he did it", others to "she made it up".

And I do not think that pressing charges against the accuser in this case is appropriate. However, it exposes a problem with the "preponderance of evidence" standard as saying that it is less likely than 50% that the accuser is guilty means that it is more likely than 50% that the accuser is lying and if consistent the university would have to expel the accuser.

The "clear and convincing evidence" standard used before Obama administration forced colleges to relax their standards would have left the middle ground of unproven allegation where it can't be concluded that either the accused is guilty or that the accuser is.

 

[laughing dog]

What about "intent"? Interesting to me that you keep insisting that "intent" must be a factor in a rape conviction (when it isn't) but you leave out the important element of "intent" in your definition of a "false allegation"

So are you suggesting that even cases of mistaken identity require that the woman be criminally prosecuting and put in prison?

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

I will ask again. Suppose the person making the allegation truly believes the allegation is true?

 

[RavenSky]

What about "intent"? Interesting to me that you keep insisting that "intent" must be a factor in a rape conviction (when it isn't) but you leave out the important element of "intent" in your definition of a "false allegation"

So are you suggesting that even cases of mistaken identity require that the woman be criminally prosecuting and put in prison?

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

I notice that you still leave out "intent".

So if the woman has no intent to deceive, you are still fine with putting her in prison?

- - - Updated - - -

So the solution is to outlaw rape allegations.

Solution is to treat rape allegations with due scrutiny and to demand evidence, not presume that because a female alleges rape she is most likely telling the truth.

What will you accept as "evidence" Derec?

 

[bigfield]

So now the standard is "guilty until clear innocence can be demonstrated"?

No: you just don't have sufficient evidence to claim the clear innocence of the alleged perps.

If they were clearly innocent then they would be found innocent even by the relatively low preponderance-of-evidence standard.

Using the "preponderance of evidence" standard is very problematic even if fairly and consistently applied but it is much worse because the standard is not applied fairly. In all the cases I mentioned it is far less likely that the accused guys were innocent.

And there you go, pulling judgements out of your ass.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

The FSU Noles quaterback case, *might* be one of those cases where "the difference between the story and the reality is substantially more than just human error". In view of :

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ston-not-charged-sexual-assault-investigation

In no way am I concluding the alleged victim made it all up. There are some grey areas in the process of the Tallahassee PD investigation. However, claims of "human error" on her part in that case would be suspicious.

Mind you that the SA at no time concludes "she made it up". Only that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case. That entire "drama" left a question mark in the mind of the FSU community. Some leaning towards "he did it", others to "she made it up".

Based only on that read I wouldn't convict on false charges---that article doesn't rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

- - - Updated - - -

The FSU Noles quaterback case, *might* be one of those cases where "the difference between the story and the reality is substantially more than just human error". In view of :

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ston-not-charged-sexual-assault-investigation

In no way am I concluding the alleged victim made it all up. There are some grey areas in the process of the Tallahassee PD investigation. However, claims of "human error" on her part in that case would be suspicious.

Mind you that the SA at no time concludes "she made it up". Only that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case. That entire "drama" left a question mark in the mind of the FSU community. Some leaning towards "he did it", others to "she made it up".

And I do not think that pressing charges against the accuser in this case is appropriate. However, it exposes a problem with the "preponderance of evidence" standard as saying that it is less likely than 50% that the accuser is guilty means that it is more likely than 50% that the accuser is lying and if consistent the university would have to expel the accuser.

The "clear and convincing evidence" standard used before Obama administration forced colleges to relax their standards would have left the middle ground of unproven allegation where it can't be concluded that either the accused is guilty or that the accuser is.

Yeah--by preponderance of the evidence somebody should be punished. There's no middle ground.

- - - Updated - - -

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

I will ask again. Suppose the person making the allegation truly believes the allegation is true?

If they're sufficiently self-delusional that they have convinced themselves it happened when it didn't they either belong in a psychiatric facility or at a minimum their word should have no credibility in court.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mistaken identity normally involves people that look similar. Thus I would not call that a major aspect.

I'm talking about cases where the difference between the story and reality is substantially more than just normal human error.

I notice that you still leave out "intent".

So if the woman has no intent to deceive, you are still fine with putting her in prison?

If she's not telling the cops the truth she's lying--there's your intent to deceive.

 

[Metaphor]

I notice that you still leave out "intent".

So if the woman has no intent to deceive, you are still fine with putting her in prison?

If she's not telling the cops the truth she's lying--there's your intent to deceive.

No, you can make a counterfactual statement without lying. You could be mistaken.

I think knowingly or maliciously false should be the standard.

 

[laughing dog]

If they're sufficiently self-delusional that they have convinced themselves it happened when it didn't they either belong in a psychiatric facility or at a minimum their word should have no credibility in court.

Your analysis is based on a false excluded middle. People can be mistaken or confused without having any intention to deceive. More importantly, your response did not answer the question. Let's try for a third time. In your scheme, the person making the allegation truly believes the allegation is true, is he/she guilty of making a false report? Really, a simple yes or no is sufficient.

 

[Sabine Grant]

The FSU Noles quaterback case, *might* be one of those cases where "the difference between the story and the reality is substantially more than just human error". In view of :

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ston-not-charged-sexual-assault-investigation

In no way am I concluding the alleged victim made it all up. There are some grey areas in the process of the Tallahassee PD investigation. However, claims of "human error" on her part in that case would be suspicious.

Mind you that the SA at no time concludes "she made it up". Only that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case. That entire "drama" left a question mark in the mind of the FSU community. Some leaning towards "he did it", others to "she made it up".

And I do not think that pressing charges against the accuser in this case is appropriate. However, it exposes a problem with the "preponderance of evidence" standard as saying that it is less likely than 50% that the accuser is guilty means that it is more likely than 50% that the accuser is lying and if consistent the university would have to expel the accuser.

In this particular case, neither Winston nor the alleged victim were considered by the FSU administration as "guilty" of anything. No sanctions were taken against Winston in January 2013 when the alleged victim filed a police report accusing him of raping her( a month after the alleged sexual assault) and as the SA concluded in December 2013 that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the case, no sanctions were taken against the alleged victim. A major difference between that case and others is that the alleged victim filed a complaint with the PD triggering an official law enforcement conducted investigation

The "clear and convincing evidence" standard used before Obama administration forced colleges to relax their standards would have left the middle ground of unproven allegation where it can't be concluded that either the accused is guilty or that the accuser is.

It seems to me that every alleged victim reporting a sexual crime SHOULD be automatically referred to the local PD or Sheriff's Department so an officially conducted investigation takes place and conducted by personnel whose profession is to investigate rather than College Administrators drawing any conclusions and acting on them by penalizing the accused party.However, such Administration cannot remain passive to the possibility that the accusation is valid and there is an actual victim who would then be placed in the situation (during the time of the official investigation) to have to share the same environment as the party who sexually assaulted her.

Can you think of alternatives then in that situation? Alternatives meeting the need to preserve the "innocent until proven guilty" addressing the accused party while preserving the alleged victim's well being and safety?

 

[Sabine Grant]

If she's not telling the cops the truth she's lying--there's your intent to deceive.

No, you can make a counterfactual statement without lying. You could be mistaken.

I think knowingly or maliciously false should be the standard.

I agree 100%. A long time ago when I lived in California, there was a case in San Francisco when a car accident victim accused the 2 EMTs attending her in the transport to have attempted to rape her.She consistently gave the same details of the alleged attempt to the Police, not deviating from what she believed happened. Most probably the result of a head trauma, her brain subjectively interpreted the EMTs medically justified handling of her person as an assault on her person. Creating what is referred to as a "false memory".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If she's not telling the cops the truth she's lying--there's your intent to deceive.

No, you can make a counterfactual statement without lying. You could be mistaken.

I think knowingly or maliciously false should be the standard.

I could accept knowingly but that's awfully hard to prove.

I can't accept maliciously because in many cases it isn't. She doesn't actually have an interest in harming him, but rather in avoiding harm to herself.